The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1887-03-10


From the data furnished me neither
the SRrVer fields nor the Carnes land
seem to contain more than 800 acres, an
insufficient quantity Of land for broad
irrigation, having regard for future
needs. Aside from the deficiency Of
land, q glance at the estimates will
show the imDraoticabillty of broad irri-
CATION at either of these locations. A
comparison Of the estimates for inter-
mittent filtration at the Sarver fields and
the Carnes land shows the first cost Of
the former to be slightly less thon
that Of the latter, while the annual ex.
pense Of operating the farm is slightly
In favor OF the Csrles land. For this
reason and from the fact that the CaEnes
land is more remote from the city, and
the BarVer fields lie In the track Of the
prevailing summer winds to the city,
the Sarver fields may be excluded from
further consideration. II will be noticed
that for crude disposal, or for preCipita
tiOn, pumping ls not required, while for
irrigation or filtration at either lOca-
ti0ns pumping would be necessary,
Neither the estimates for irrigation ner
for filtration includes the cost for taking
care of the sewage after IL has been de-.
llVered on the ground, 1t being assumed
that the income from the crops will
meet this expense. The estimates for
precipitation are based on q location at
the Reynolds bottom land, and the Brill
hart bottom land, either Of which lOca.
t10ns is suitable for such work, the Bay
n0lds bottom land being the most dc.
sirabte from the nature Of the soil and
the lay Of the land. As sewage Is more
fully purified by irrigation or filtration
than by precipitation l have included In
the estimates for precipitation the
purchase Of twenty acres OF land,
this amount Of land is not necessary
at present and will not probably ba 80
for some time 10 come, but II In the
future, towns below should take water
from this creek for domestic purposes It
may be necessary to filter the effluent
through earth, and 1t will be we'll to
have land for that purpose. II is diff
cult to estimate the annual cost of
chemical precipitation, for much will
depend upon the required purity Of the
ef1lent and upon the portion Of the year
1t Will be necessary to treat the sewage.
For the purpose Of comparison Of the
cost Of operating the different methods,
have assumed the expense Of precipIta-
ti0n as fifty cents per head per annum,
which believe IN your case is quite
enough, and this Is intended to cover the
cost Of treating the sewage twelve
months in the year. After carefully
considering all the existing conditions
In your case recommend chemical pre-.
cipitatiOn to supplement crude disposal,
so far as 1t shall be found necessary, and
this believe Will prove the most RDDli-
cable to your needs. As before stated Il
will be well to secure land for the fltrs-
tion Of the fluent should Il become
necessary In the future. There will
probably be much Of the time to come
when crude disposal may be made OF the
sewage OF to say the least, the chemical
treatment need not be carried to high
degree Of perfection. l am informed
that some parties are ready to con.
tract with your city to take the sludge
from the tanks free Of expense to you,
and while l cannot encourage the ex-
DectatiOn that such arrangements will
prove lasting or satisfactory, still 10
may not be unwise to consider such an
offer from responsible parties.
and should you be able to make such
arrangements permanently Che cost Of
che works would be much reduced, for
you would thereby be able 10 do without
the litter presses and other parts of the
plant included In the estimate. IdesIre
to acknowledge my indebtedness 20 Mr,
John H. Holl, City Engineer, for much
valuable information furnished me In a
very concise and comprehensive form.
SAMUEL M. GRAY.